Tom Watson wrote:

I also do not use hearing protection when doing this.

I want to see and hear and feel how that piece is going through that
saw.

If the accumulated wisdom of my senses tells me to bail on that cut, I
want to be able to shut that saw down with a clear understanding of
the problem that made that necessary.

With all due respect to your experience, good quality hearing protection
will allow you to hear far more audio detail than without protection.

As the overall sound pressure level goes up, your ears become less
sensitive to certain frequencies, and the overall level will mask the
problem. You may already suffer from hearing damage due to your years
of exposure to site and shop noise, so your personal experience may differ.

I can hear chip out, cracking, binding, etc... much sooner when I'm
wearing good muffs than without.

In article k.net, "Dave Jackson" wrote:
(snip) I disagree completely. I think a lot of accidents in the shop happen
to people
who are knowledgeable and aware, but whose attention slips briefly at just
the
wrong moment.

I have to disagree with your disagreement. To operate table saw safely it
requires the operators full undivided attention. If someone is not
disciplined enough to give it their full attention, there is a good chance
that there will be an accident in their future with or without a guard.

Isn't that pretty much what I just said?

As an example, if you get American Woodworker mag, check out page 28 in this
months issue. The owner of a small woodworking shop and operator of a new
SawStop says he was in a hurry batch cutting stock

Isn't that pretty much what I just said? g

when his finger went
under the blade guard and hit the blade. Of course the brake saved him for
major injury, but, as you noted, accidents can happen when attention wanders
even briefly. This is the part of running a machine that takes discipline.
IMHO, if one can give their machine their full undivided attention at all
times, the chances of an accident are small.

Add to that the further stipulations that the operator is fully knowledgeable
of proper operating procedures, and is using all appropriate guides, guards,
hold-downs, pushsticks, etc. -- *and* that the wood being milled contains no
hidden defects that could cause unanticipated problems -- and we're close to
being in agreement.

BTW, I do not think I'm invincible or anything because I can run a table saw
comfortably with no guard, or believe for a second that an accident could
never happen to me. I run a table saw almost daily and am disciplined
enough to not let anything distract me while I'm running it.

I hope you're right about your level of discipline and attention. Fact is,
though, all of us are only human, and IME most of us are not as good at
anything as we think we are. That's why there are guards on machines.

Regardless of
whether or not it has a guard, MY fingers are at stake here, and the saw
has my full undivided attention at all times. This has played the key role
for me in keeping all 10 intact.

Let us hope that full undivided attention never wanders.

I do think, however, that it is very possible that people who do use a guard
may get a false sense of security and may become a little more relaxed with
regards to giving their undivided attenion to the saw during a cut.

Perhaps.

With that said, I certainly don't recommend anyone remove their guard but to
run their table saw as if it wasn't there at all. The guard is merely to
HELP prevent accidents, not eliminate them. Safe use of a table saw still
lands squarely on the operators shoulders. --dave

And on *that* point we are solidly in agreement.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Rob Mills" wrote:

"Samson" wrote in message
...

Question: Do you use one? If not, why not?

Nope! I can still count to ten but the closest call I have ever had was with
the guard on. I find it a distraction and always in the way. I am not a full
time woodworker but have used a table saw for 50yr (just every now and then)
so don't get what you would call comfortable with the blade, so it scares
hell out of me and I want to be able to see it at all times. RM~

Why do you want to see it?

A *lot* of people have said that, but nobody has explained why. And at least
one person has pointed out that you *can't* see the part of it that's going to
bite you while it's moving... so what purpose is served by being able to see
the blade?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:02:05 GMT, "CW" wrote:

I don't believe it.

Nor do I. But at least it is more believable than the guy who was
posting on the Saw Stop thread that his wife was a surgeon that does a
thousand a year.

It doesn't correlate statistically with my experience as a maker of
saws in defense of personal injury claims and providing individuals as
technical experts in depositions.

This is an important matter. David should authenticate if it is true.

Do you really need to question the number of injuries. If you really want
some idea just have a look through this ng and other woodworking forums to
see the number of posts about near misses and not so near misses. I see a
posting about an injury/near miss at least twice a week. Now take into
account the the vast majority of woodworkers who do not have internet access
or subscribe to this ng and the number of injuries grows quite considerably.

"Paul D" wrote in message
...


Do you really need to question the number of injuries. If you really want
some idea just have a look through this ng and other woodworking forums to
see the number of posts about near misses and not so near misses. I see a
posting about an injury/near miss at least twice a week. Now take into
account the the vast majority of woodworkers who do not have internet
access
or subscribe to this ng and the number of injuries grows quite
considerably.



Twice a week? You must look at a lot of other forums besides this one. I
sure don't see that kind of frequency here. What are you calling injuries
and near misses though? Many of the things that have been posted here about
problems people have gotten into would not have been eliminated by a blade
guard.

--

-Mike-

"Dave Jackson" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Regardless of whether or not it has a guard, MY fingers are at stake
here, and the saw has my full undivided attention at all times. This has
played the key role for me in keeping all 10 intact.

You better knock on some wood.

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 17:35:47 -0700, wrote:


Frank Boettcher wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 12:07:37 -0700, wrote:


Frank Boettcher wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 07:25:59 -0700, wrote:


Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:02:05 GMT, "CW" wrote:

I don't believe it.

Nor do I. But at least it is more believable than the guy who was
posting on the Saw Stop thread that his wife was a surgeon that does a
thousand a year.

Keep in mind that some injuries require multiple operations to repair.

My neighbor, who lost two fingers to a table saw had one restored,
but after two years had it re-amputated as the previous operation(s)
were not adequately successful.


It doesn't correlate statistically with my experience as a maker of
saws in defense of personal injury claims and providing individuals as
technical experts in depositions.

E.g. a home-user who removed his guard
is not likely to even consider suing.

Not accurate.

How is that not accurate?

Cases are filed, just not necessarily won.

I didn't deny that cases are filed or won. I speculated that
a home-user who removed his guard is not likely to even
consider suing. That implies that such suits would be rare,
not nonexistant, although no one in thid thread has presented
an example of such a suit--yet, despite the fact that we have
had examples of accidents presented.


And I would contend that your speculation is in error.

But you actually discuss a matter not dispositive as to
the question of what proportion of the injured sues or
seriously considers suing.

It is not that your comments are wrong or even questionable,
they just don't address that particular question.


Manufacturer has the obligation to "Guard and Warn" failure to do
either puts them in a bad position in an action.

Yes, that is one reason why I expect that most people who injure
themselves after removing their guards never consider suing.
They may not have been smart enough to avoid injury
but maybe they are smart or honest enough to realize that
if they ignored the manufacturer's warnings and removed the
manufacturer's safety device, they don't have a case.

Another reason may be that most of the injuries that do require
professional treatment are (hopefully) relatively trivial--mere
stitches
required.

Keep in mind that there is a reason why you see news items about
people winning seemingly trivial suits--they are rare. If they were
commonplace, they wouldn't be newsworthy.

And I would contend that you are in error with this statement also.
I've served on the liability committee of a fortune 100 company (not
the woodworking machinery company) and can assure you that the vast
majority of cases are settled without going to court simply because it
cost the defendant less to do so, win or lose.
The vast majority of those potential cases were without merit.

I didn't argue that meritless (dare I say fraudulent) suits are
not an expensive problem, only that it is rare for a plaintiff
to win one that actually DOES go to trial.

OK please tell me how that matters.

How much it matters turns on the antecedent for 'they'.
if 'they' are people who make the news by winning
trivial cases then I was right and you presented a
reason why I was right. If the antecedent for 'they'
was all of the people who filed, then I was wrong
for the reasons you presented.

I apologize for the ambiguity.

Now, you are also concened with the trangential issue
of importance to the defendant, right? This is tangential
to the discusison, because it is achange in direction of
the discusion, not because it is unimportant.

Here is one way 'it' matters to the defendant:
It affects the dollar amount at which the decision is made
to defend rather than to settle. The more likely it is that
the defendant will lose, the more that defendant will be
willing to pay to settle out-of-court.

That is why limit on punitive damages encourage insurance
companies to lowball legitimate claims. The statutory
limit on punitives limits their exposure if they act in
bad faith. And companies who act in good faith can
thereby find themselves financially uncompetative with
those that do not.

OTOH, companies that justifiably fight fraudulent claims
to the bitter end rack up legal fees that also make them
financially uncompetative.

Beter enforcement of the prohibitions on perpetrating
a fraud on the court would help but that's a difficult
area.

If most are trivial or without
merit and most are settled by paying off the those intitiating the
suit, how does that matter whether it goes to trial other than
semantics.

The question you pose above is about a different aspect of the
subject than were the statements you challenged. I don't
dispute the veracity of your points, I just observe that they
are not contradictory with mine.

You questioned two statements.

One, was that the frequency of table saw accidents was
probably much higher than the frequency of lawsuits stemming
from such accidents. The other was that one seldom hears
about plaintiffs with seemingly trivial complaints winning large
judgements because such cases are rare. I already addressed
the second above.

Now back to the first:

You ignore the possibility that most _accidents_ never got
your attention in the first place. THAT was the point I
was making and as you will recall, expressed thus:
"For every meritless suit there may be ten or more
equally injured people who lack the chutzpah to sue."


... However, my opinion, formed as an individual who ran an
operation that made a high volume of table saws, remains the same. And
your opinion is based on.......

That is based on four tablesaw injuries with which I am
personally familiar and several that have been related
here--none of those involved a lawsuit.

Correct me if am wrong but you were not in a position to know
how many people were injured, only how many sued, right?

--

FF

On 26 Oct 2006 12:56:19 -0700, wrote:

much rambling snipped

... However, my opinion, formed as an individual who ran an
operation that made a high volume of table saws, remains the same. And
your opinion is based on.......

That is based on four tablesaw injuries with which I am
personally familiar and several that have been related
here--none of those involved a lawsuit.


Well that certainly qualifies you as an expert on the two points I
make.

The first is that in this thread and others, I strongly suspect, that
certain individuals are posting information about their personal
knowledge or involvement with table saw hand injuries that, when
projected to a total population of table saw hand injuries is
significantly more than the reality. The posts, I believe, are in
many cases, simply trolls. They are generally posted with no
authentication. I believe I'm right on this, and I sincerely hope I'm
right.

Secondly, I indicated that you were in error in your statement about
the population of suits and who might have the propensity to do so.
I will offer no more information about what I know to support the
statement for reasons previously mentioned.

You certainly may hold and post any opinion you wish. And those that
haven't become completely bored with this thread and continue to
follow it may draw their own conclusions.

Frank

"Paul D" wrote in message
...


Do you really need to question the number of injuries. If you really want
some idea just have a look through this ng and other woodworking forums to
see the number of posts about near misses and not so near misses. I see a
posting about an injury/near miss at least twice a week. Now take into
account the the vast majority of woodworkers who do not have internet
access
or subscribe to this ng and the number of injuries grows quite
considerably.



When I cut my thumb in 1989 the ER doctor indicated that he saw TS injuries
at least daily.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...


A *lot* of people have said that, but nobody has explained why. And at
least
one person has pointed out that you *can't* see the part of it that's
going to
bite you while it's moving... so what purpose is served by being able to
see
the blade?


I like to see the blade so that I can align my mark up with where the teeth
are "actually" cutting when cross cutting. Aligning with a stationary
tooth does not always result with a dead on cut. All teeth cut a bit
differently. If you ease the board and mark up to the spinning blade you
can see where the cut begins in relation to the mark. Other wise it tends
to be a bit of trial by error.

Additionally, I have seen small pieces of cut off waste apparently get bound
up between the guard and blade and come shooting out. I personally feel
better with out the guard than with and I have been injured after the saw
was turned off. Guard or no guard, you still have to be careful and still
stand the risk of being injured with any tool regardless of your experience.

Actually I find a majority of the injuries could only be eliminated by a
Idiot Guard. They are mostly results from ppl trying to do things they
shouldn't be doing on a saw, or doing it the wrong way.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

"Paul D" wrote in message
...


Do you really need to question the number of injuries. If you really
want
some idea just have a look through this ng and other woodworking forums
to
see the number of posts about near misses and not so near misses. I see
a
posting about an injury/near miss at least twice a week. Now take into
account the the vast majority of woodworkers who do not have internet
access
or subscribe to this ng and the number of injuries grows quite
considerably.



Twice a week? You must look at a lot of other forums besides this one. I
sure don't see that kind of frequency here. What are you calling injuries
and near misses though? Many of the things that have been posted here
about
problems people have gotten into would not have been eliminated by a blade
guard.

--

-Mike-

Leon wrote:

I like to see the blade so that I can align my mark up with where the teeth
are "actually" cutting when cross cutting.

Screw a sacrificial fence to your mitre gauge/crosscut sled, then cut a
kerf in it with the blade you're going to use. The edge of the kerf is
where your cut will be.

Chris

In article , "Leon" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...


A *lot* of people have said that, but nobody has explained why. And at least
one person has pointed out that you *can't* see the part of it that's going to
bite you while it's moving... so what purpose is served by being able to see
the blade?

I like to see the blade so that I can align my mark up with where the teeth
are "actually" cutting when cross cutting. Aligning with a stationary
tooth does not always result with a dead on cut.

If it doesn't, you need to use better blades, or a saw with less run-out.

All teeth cut a bit
differently. If you ease the board and mark up to the spinning blade you
can see where the cut begins in relation to the mark. Other wise it tends
to be a bit of trial by error.

Again -- if there's so much difference between the static position and the
actual cut, you need better equipment.

Additionally, I have seen small pieces of cut off waste apparently get bound
up between the guard and blade and come shooting out.

Yep -- I've seen that too. I've also seen offcuts walk into the blade from
vibration and come shooting out when there was *not* a guard in place. Not a
valid argument for removing the guard IMO.

I personally feel
better with out the guard than with

Thank you.

and I have been injured after the saw
was turned off. Guard or no guard, you still have to be careful and still
stand the risk of being injured with any tool regardless of your experience.

No argument there.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:


Screw a sacrificial fence to your mitre gauge/crosscut sled, then cut a
kerf in it with the blade you're going to use. The edge of the kerf is
where your cut will be.

Chris

You can do that too. I prefer my method.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:aHb0h.358
If it doesn't, you need to use better blades, or a saw with less run-out.

Not necessarily so. Proper alignment of the blade to the miter slot is to
use a single tooth tip to take front and back measurements. Teeth are not
always in perfect alignment with each other. I use WWII's and a relatively
new Jet cabinet saw with .0005 run out at the arbor the last time I checked.
I get really smooth/burnished cuts.




All teeth cut a bit
differently. If you ease the board and mark up to the spinning blade you
can see where the cut begins in relation to the mark. Other wise it tends
to be a bit of trial by error.

Again -- if there's so much difference between the static position and the
actual cut, you need better equipment.

Nope. Not all teeth on blades cut on both sides of the kerf. I simply like
to use the actual kerf vs. picking out the tooth that will establish the
particular kerf edge that I am looking for



Additionally, I have seen small pieces of cut off waste apparently get
bound
up between the guard and blade and come shooting out.

Yep -- I've seen that too. I've also seen offcuts walk into the blade from
vibration and come shooting out when there was *not* a guard in place. Not
a
valid argument for removing the guard IMO.

Not saying that cut offs may not walk back into the blade however I have
never seen one being thrown back with much force unless it was in a bind.
That would be your classic kick back. I have had plenty of pieces walk back
into the back end of the blade after the cut but if there is nothing to hold
the scrap against the blade, there is not as much chance of the piece being
forcefully thrown back at you.
I am not saying to not use a guard, I am only saying that with any tool, a
guard is not a guarantee and accidents can still happen. With the guards
that come standard on MOST saws, I view an equal to more risk of injury from
flying debris. AND, while I believe I learned many years ago to wait for
the blade to stop spinning before making adjustments I realize an accident
can still happen. If I feel the need for more safety equipment I might go
with the Bies style guard but probably will move up to the Saw Stop.





I personally feel
better with out the guard than with

Thank you.

and I have been injured after the saw
was turned off. Guard or no guard, you still have to be careful and still
stand the risk of being injured with any tool regardless of your
experience.

No argument there.

Thank you Doug, I think we covered both views pretty well. If a user has
the guard and feels better using it I certainly do advise using it. The
less you worry about during the cut, the more attention you can pay to the
cut.

"Paul D" wrote in message
...
Actually I find a majority of the injuries could only be eliminated by a
Idiot Guard. They are mostly results from ppl trying to do things they
shouldn't be doing on a saw, or doing it the wrong way.


Absolutely correct. But, us show me a person that is incapable of making a
mistake or doing some something stupid and I'll call him God.

In article , "Leon" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:aHb0h.358
If it doesn't, you need to use better blades, or a saw with less run-out.

Not necessarily so. Proper alignment of the blade to the miter slot is to
use a single tooth tip to take front and back measurements. Teeth are not
always in perfect alignment with each other. I use WWII's and a relatively
new Jet cabinet saw with .0005 run out at the arbor the last time I checked.
I get really smooth/burnished cuts.

Same here on all counts. When I'm cutting to a pencil mark, I routinely line
up a single tooth against the mark (with the saw off, of course) -- and I have
*never* observed the actual cut to deviate from that position. If that *does*
happen for you, your saw has more runout than you think, or there's something
wrong with your blade.

All teeth cut a bit
differently. If you ease the board and mark up to the spinning blade you
can see where the cut begins in relation to the mark. Other wise it tends
to be a bit of trial by error.

Again -- if there's so much difference between the static position and the
actual cut, you need better equipment.

Nope. Not all teeth on blades cut on both sides of the kerf.

Yes, I know that.

I simply like
to use the actual kerf vs. picking out the tooth that will establish the
particular kerf edge that I am looking for

I repeat: if there's so much difference between the static position and the
actual cut that it becomes a trial and error process, you have an equipment
problem.



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...


Same here on all counts. When I'm cutting to a pencil mark, I routinely
line
up a single tooth against the mark (with the saw off, of course) -- and I
have
*never* observed the actual cut to deviate from that position. If that
*does*
happen for you, your saw has more runout than you think, or there's
something
wrong with your blade.


I guess the point I am trying to make here is that I do not want to spin the
blade to get to the tooth that is going to establish the side of the cut
that I am referencing.




Nope. Not all teeth on blades cut on both sides of the kerf.

Yes, I know that.

Then you can understand why I do not rely on using any tooth that is in
position to align my mark.


I simply like
to use the actual kerf vs. picking out the tooth that will establish the
particular kerf edge that I am looking for

I repeat: if there's so much difference between the static position and
the
actual cut that it becomes a trial and error process, you have an
equipment
problem.

No equipment error, I just like to be as exact as I can be to start with.
The difference is very slight between the tooth that cuts the left side of
the kerf and the tooth that cuts the right side of the kerf and for the most
part is probably immesurable however this is the way that I have ended up
aligning my cuts. Years ago I used to align marks with reference marks on
my insert and that worked pretty good however I progressed to seeing the cut
as a reference. It's a touchey feeley kind of thing.

In article , "Leon" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...


Same here on all counts. When I'm cutting to a pencil mark, I routinely
line
up a single tooth against the mark (with the saw off, of course) -- and I
have
*never* observed the actual cut to deviate from that position. If that
*does*
happen for you, your saw has more runout than you think, or there's
something
wrong with your blade.


I guess the point I am trying to make here is that I do not want to spin the
blade to get to the tooth that is going to establish the side of the cut
that I am referencing.

And the point that *I'm* trying to make is that if you *need* to that, you
have an equipment problem of some sort: excessive runout, bent arbor, bent
blade, or teeth that aren't set uniformly. In my experience, *any* tooth
that's set to the side where the pencil mark is will work just fine to
establish the cut line. Given that none of the equipment problems I cited
above exist, that is.

Nope. Not all teeth on blades cut on both sides of the kerf.

Yes, I know that.

Then you can understand why I do not rely on using any tooth that is in
position to align my mark.

No, I'm sorry, I can't understand that.

Blade will have teeth set like \, |, and /, right? So if your pencil mark is
left of the blade, align it to *any* tooth that's set like \ . That's all.
There's no need to rotate the blade any more than two or three teeth to get
one that's set in the proper direction.


I simply like
to use the actual kerf vs. picking out the tooth that will establish the
particular kerf edge that I am looking for

I repeat: if there's so much difference between the static position and
the
actual cut that it becomes a trial and error process, you have an
equipment
problem.

No equipment error, I just like to be as exact as I can be to start with.

OK, fine -- are you telling me that aligning a pencil mark that's left of the
blade, to the point of a tooth that's set to the left, isn't "exact"??

The difference is very slight between the tooth that cuts the left side of
the kerf and the tooth that cuts the right side of the kerf and for the most
part is probably immesurable

I wouldn't call it immeasurable; it's probably at least 1/32". Of course, I
haven't been talking about aligning the pencil mark to just any random tooth,
either.

however this is the way that I have ended up
aligning my cuts. Years ago I used to align marks with reference marks on
my insert and that worked pretty good however I progressed to seeing the cut
as a reference. It's a touchey feeley kind of thing.

So, tell me, how do you align your pencil mark with the spinning blade?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On 26 Oct 2006 12:56:19 -0700, wrote:

much rambling snipped

... However, my opinion, formed as an individual who ran an
operation that made a high volume of table saws, remains the same. And
your opinion is based on.......

That is based on four tablesaw injuries with which I am
personally familiar and several that have been related
here--none of those involved a lawsuit.

[unsnip] Correct me if am wrong but you were not in a position to know
how many people were injured, only how many sued, right?

Well that certainly qualifies you as an expert on the two points I
make.

You are correct if you suppose I have no first-hand knowledge
of any such suits.


The first is that in this thread and others, I strongly suspect, that
certain individuals are posting information about their personal
knowledge or involvement with table saw hand injuries that, when
projected to a total population of table saw hand injuries is
significantly more than the reality. The posts, I believe, are in
many cases, simply trolls. They are generally posted with no
authentication. I believe I'm right on this, and I sincerely hope I'm
right.

Secondly, I indicated that you were in error in your statement about
the population of suits and who might have the propensity to do so.
I will offer no more information about what I know to support the
statement for reasons previously mentioned.

You certainly may hold and post any opinion you wish. And those that
haven't become completely bored with this thread and continue to
follow it may draw their own conclusions.


That's cool.

--

FF

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...

Blade will have teeth set like \, |, and /, right? So if your pencil mark
is
left of the blade, align it to *any* tooth that's set like \ . That's all.
There's no need to rotate the blade any more than two or three teeth to
get
one that's set in the proper direction.


Precicely. I do not want to rotate the blade at all. Typically the blade
wants to return back to the previous positiion after you let go and you are
back where you started. Its just an extra step that I do not widh to take.



So, tell me, how do you align your pencil mark with the spinning blade?

I ease the wood up to the blade and watch where the blade "begins to cut" in
relation to the mark. If it is not where I want it, I simply move the board
left or right and proceed with the cut. Not totally unlike using a portable
circle saw and beginning the cut. I never use any thing but the spinning
blade to align the start of the cut.

In article , "Leon" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...

Blade will have teeth set like \, |, and /, right? So if your pencil mark
is
left of the blade, align it to *any* tooth that's set like \ . That's all.
There's no need to rotate the blade any more than two or three teeth to
get
one that's set in the proper direction.


Precicely. I do not want to rotate the blade at all. Typically the blade
wants to return back to the previous positiion after you let go and you are
back where you started. Its just an extra step that I do not widh to take.

Oh, come on, I do that all the time. It takes five seconds, max -- and you're
leaving the blade guard off because you don't want to take that "extra step".
Do you leave your seat belt off when you drive, too, because it takes too long
to buckle it on?


So, tell me, how do you align your pencil mark with the spinning blade?

I ease the wood up to the blade and watch where the blade "begins to cut" in
relation to the mark. If it is not where I want it, I simply move the board
left or right and proceed with the cut. Not totally unlike using a portable
circle saw and beginning the cut. I never use any thing but the spinning
blade to align the start of the cut.

So in other words, you'

(a) leaning over a spinning, unguarded blade so you can see where it's hitting
the board -- because that's the only way you can see where the blade actually
contacts the leading (bottom) edge of the wood -- and

(b) adjusting the position of the wood back and forth while directly adjacent
to said spinning, unguarded blade

because you don't want to take the "extra step" of rotating the (stopped)
blade a couple of teeth to make a static alignment.

A static alignment that you will *not* have to readjust when you start the
saw.

Think it through. You're *not* saving *any* time at all. And you *are*
increasing the hazard.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
So in other words, you'

(a) leaning over a spinning, unguarded blade so you can see where it's
hitting
the board -- because that's the only way you can see where the blade
actually
contacts the leading (bottom) edge of the wood -- and

Correct.


(b) adjusting the position of the wood back and forth while directly
adjacent
to said spinning, unguarded blade

Correct.


because you don't want to take the "extra step" of rotating the (stopped)
blade a couple of teeth to make a static alignment.

Correct.


A static alignment that you will *not* have to readjust when you start the
saw.

Correct.


Think it through. You're *not* saving *any* time at all. And you *are*
increasing the hazard.

Yes, saving time and the hazaed does increase. I can live with that.

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
So in other words, you'

(a) leaning over a spinning, unguarded blade so you can see where it's
hitting
the board -- because that's the only way you can see where the blade
actually
contacts the leading (bottom) edge of the wood -- and

Correct.


(b) adjusting the position of the wood back and forth while directly
adjacent
to said spinning, unguarded blade

Correct.


because you don't want to take the "extra step" of rotating the (stopped)
blade a couple of teeth to make a static alignment.

Correct.


A static alignment that you will *not* have to readjust when you start
the
saw.

Correct.


Think it through. You're *not* saving *any* time at all. And you *are*
increasing the hazard.

Yes, saving time and the hazaed does increase. I can live with that.

Geez, how much time does it take to rotate the blade 20 degrees or however
far you have to to get a tooth set in the right direction exposed? It's not
like they're set in random positions--they'll either be alternate left and
right or left, center, right so you don't have to rotate more than teeth
worth.

"Larry Kraus" wrote in message
"Leon" wrote:

I ease the wood up to the blade and watch where the blade "begins to cut"
in
relation to the mark. If it is not where I want it, I simply move the
board
left or right and proceed with the cut. Not totally unlike using a
portable
circle saw and beginning the cut. I never use any thing but the spinning
blade to align the start of the cut.

If you have to move the board left or right after the blade "begins to
cut", you have already mis-cut the board.

He did not say that he moves the board _during the cut_ ... furthermore, you
can argue the method, but you can't argue with the results once you've seen
any of Leon's work.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/06

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Geez, how much time does it take to rotate the blade 20 degrees or however
far you have to to get a tooth set in the right direction exposed? It's
not like they're set in random positions--they'll either be alternate left
and right or left, center, right so you don't have to rotate more than
teeth worth.

What does it matter how much time it takes. The blade spins back to where
it was when I let go.
I'll do it my way, you do it yours.

J. Clarke wrote:

Geez, how much time does it take to rotate the blade 20 degrees or however
far you have to to get a tooth set in the right direction exposed? It's not
like they're set in random positions--they'll either be alternate left and
right or left, center, right so you don't have to rotate more than teeth
worth.


It the unplugging/plugging in the saw to rotate the blade that eats up
the time.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

"Nova" wrote in message
news:Nsw0h.27$dx4.10@trndny05...
J. Clarke wrote:

Geez, how much time does it take to rotate the blade 20 degrees or
however far you have to to get a tooth set in the right direction
exposed? It's not like they're set in random positions--they'll either
be alternate left and right or left, center, right so you don't have to
rotate more than teeth worth.

It the unplugging/plugging in the saw to rotate the blade that eats up the
time.


Exactly.... ;~)

"Leon" wrote in message
om...

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Geez, how much time does it take to rotate the blade 20 degrees or
however far you have to to get a tooth set in the right direction
exposed? It's not like they're set in random positions--they'll either
be alternate left and right or left, center, right so you don't have to
rotate more than teeth worth.

What does it matter how much time it takes. The blade spins back to where
it was when I let go.

Damn, must be nice to have such loose bearings. Or maybe something needs
balancing?

I'll do it my way, you do it yours.

Enjoy your fingers while you have them.

"Leon" wrote in message
om...

"Nova" wrote in message
news:Nsw0h.27$dx4.10@trndny05...
J. Clarke wrote:

Geez, how much time does it take to rotate the blade 20 degrees or
however far you have to to get a tooth set in the right direction
exposed? It's not like they're set in random positions--they'll either
be alternate left and right or left, center, right so you don't have to
rotate more than teeth worth.

It the unplugging/plugging in the saw to rotate the blade that eats up
the time.


Exactly.... ;~)

Geez, you people are nuts.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...



What does it matter how much time it takes. The blade spins back to
where it was when I let go.

Damn, must be nice to have such loose bearings. Or maybe something needs
balancing?



That would be the set in the 3 belts.

In article ,
Leon wrote:

I ease the wood up to the blade and watch where the blade "begins to cut" in
relation to the mark. If it is not where I want it, I simply move the board
left or right and proceed with the cut. Not totally unlike using a portable
circle saw and beginning the cut. I never use any thing but the spinning
blade to align the start of the cut.



So tell me, how does this work out for you when you are ripping a
sheet of plywood?




--
No dumb questions, just dumb answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore, Maryland -

Ever seen Leon? He stands about 12'6" and weighs in about 500. He's from
Texas you know

wrote in message
...

So tell me, how does this work out for you when you are ripping a
sheet of plywood?

wrote in message
...



So tell me, how does this work out for you when you are ripping a
sheet of plywood?


LOL,,, I use the cursor on the fence to set the width. The days of
measuring from a tooth are long gone EXCEPT when I have the dado blades on
my saw. It being a left tilt requires this old way of doing things.

In article , "Leon" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.net...
So in other words, you'

(a) leaning over a spinning, unguarded blade so you can see where it's
hitting
the board -- because that's the only way you can see where the blade
actually
contacts the leading (bottom) edge of the wood -- and

Correct.

Do you think that's wise?


(b) adjusting the position of the wood back and forth while directly
adjacent
to said spinning, unguarded blade

Correct.

Do you think that's wise?

because you don't want to take the "extra step" of rotating the (stopped)
blade a couple of teeth to make a static alignment.

Correct.


A static alignment that you will *not* have to readjust when you start the
saw.

Correct.

Ah, good, I'm glad you agree (though I suspect you didn't mean to say that!).

But you're right, that *is* correct: a properly made static alignment does
*not* need to be readjusted when the blade begins to spin.

Think it through. You're *not* saving *any* time at all. And you *are*
increasing the hazard.

Yes, saving time and the hazaed does increase. I can live with that.

Doesn't sound like a good tradeoff to me -- especially since you're *not*
saving any time. You're increasing the hazard in exchange for no benefit at
all.

Do you think that's wise?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Leon" wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Geez, how much time does it take to rotate the blade 20 degrees or however
far you have to to get a tooth set in the right direction exposed? It's
not like they're set in random positions--they'll either be alternate left
and right or left, center, right so you don't have to rotate more than
teeth worth.

What does it matter how much time it takes. The blade spins back to where
it was when I let go.

Come on, now, don't be ridiculous -- how hard is it to hold the blade still
for the three seconds it takes to line your pencil mark up?


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Leon" wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...



What does it matter how much time it takes. The blade spins back to
where it was when I let go.

Damn, must be nice to have such loose bearings. Or maybe something needs
balancing?


That would be the set in the 3 belts.

Link belts do a pretty good job of reducing that problem.

Or you could adjust the belts from time to time so that the sets in the three
belts don't line up with each other...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Swingman" wrote:
"Larry Kraus" wrote in message
"Leon" wrote:

I ease the wood up to the blade and watch where the blade "begins to cut"
in
relation to the mark. If it is not where I want it, I simply move the
board
left or right and proceed with the cut. Not totally unlike using a
portable
circle saw and beginning the cut. I never use any thing but the spinning
blade to align the start of the cut.

If you have to move the board left or right after the blade "begins to
cut", you have already mis-cut the board.

He did not say that he moves the board _during the cut_

Not exactly, but he *did* say that he adjusts the board as needed after he
sees where the cut starts:

"I ease the wood up to the blade and watch where the blade "begins to cut" in
relation to the mark. If it is not where I want it, I simply move the board
left or right and proceed with the cut."




--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message

Not exactly, but he *did* say that he adjusts the board as needed after he
sees where the cut starts:

While this is getting way too religious/fixated for further participation, I
will say again what you left out of my quote ... it's damn hard to argue
with Leon's results.

Perhaps there is an element of danger that goes along with talent? IIRC, Sam
Maloof had a hard time, on more than one occasion, telling his fingers from
the workpiece when using a bandsaw.

Then there's Roy ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06

In article , "Swingman" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message

Not exactly, but he *did* say that he adjusts the board as needed after he
sees where the cut starts:

While this is getting way too religious/fixated for further participation, I
will say again what you left out of my quote ... it's damn hard to argue
with Leon's results.

I wouldn't know -- I haven't seen his results, and that wasn't the subject of
the thread anyway -- but I do know that I'm not going to ask him for safety
tips.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.